BRADLEY Et Al. v. LUNDING, CHAIRMAN, STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS COMMISSIONERS, Et Al.
Headline: Court denies emergency stay and allows Illinois’ lottery rule grouping joint petitions to set ballot order, letting the State proceed while independent judicial candidates’ ballot positions remain affected.
Holding:
- Allows Illinois to use grouped petitions in the lottery to set ballot order.
- Independent candidates may have higher chances of top or bottom ballot spots.
- Denies immediate relief to candidates seeking to block the rule.
Summary
Background
A group of independent candidates for judicial office challenged an Illinois rule that assigns ballot positions by a lottery when candidates file at the same time. Regulation 1975-2, adopted November 21, 1975, treats a group petition as one entry for the alphabetical listing and the single drawing used to break ties. The candidates sued to stop the State Board of Election Commissioners from using the lottery. A circuit court had enjoined the Board, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed that injunction on January 19, 1976, and on February 13, 1976 the candidates asked the Justices for an emergency stay — a temporary pause — of the Illinois court’s decision while appeals proceed.
Reasoning
The core question was whether treating a group petition as one entry changes an individual candidate’s chance of getting a favorable or unfavorable ballot position enough to violate federal protections. Justice Stevens explained that the rule can both raise and lower an individual’s odds: in one municipal example, four individual candidates and a ten-person group petition created different chances of appearing among the top names or below the top ten. He found the statistical differences did not show unfairness or irreparable injury needing immediate intervention. The applicants also did not claim the election would moot the case, so a stay was not required to protect the Court’s ability to decide the dispute.
Real world impact
By denying the emergency stay, the Court allowed Illinois to continue using the grouping-and-lottery system while the legal fight continues. Independent candidates remain subject to a rule that can significantly change ballot placement probabilities. This order is a temporary procedural denial of emergency relief, not a final decision on whether the rule ultimately violates constitutional rights.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?